Incorrect response address when using B4

Incorrect response address when using B4

[Daniel Gomez]

Hi,

I sent this patch [1] using B4 web endpoint and then I received a
response email to the wrong address: To: "Daniel Gomez via B4 Relay"
<devnull+da.gomez.samsung.com@kernel.org> instead of To: "Daniel Gomez"
<da.gomez@samsung.com>.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240925-macos-build-support-v3-1-233dda880e60@samsung.com/

Is this something that can be fixed on the CI, patchwork side?

Thanks,
Daniel

Re: Incorrect response address when using B4

[Konstantin Ryabitsev]

On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 03:30:07PM GMT, Daniel Gomez wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I sent this patch [1] using B4 web endpoint and then I received a
> response email to the wrong address: To: "Daniel Gomez via B4 Relay"
> <devnull+da.gomez.samsung.com@kernel.org> instead of To: "Daniel Gomez"
> <da.gomez@samsung.com>.

Was it an automated tool that sent you that message? Normally, email clients
would honour the "Reply-To" field and not use the From: address put in by the
relay.

-K

Re: Incorrect response address when using B4

[Daniel Gomez]

On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 10:07:30AM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 03:30:07PM GMT, Daniel Gomez wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I sent this patch [1] using B4 web endpoint and then I received a
> > response email to the wrong address: To: "Daniel Gomez via B4 Relay"
> > <devnull+da.gomez.samsung.com@kernel.org> instead of To: "Daniel Gomez"
> > <da.gomez@samsung.com>.
> 
> Was it an automated tool that sent you that message? Normally, email clients
> would honour the "Reply-To" field and not use the From: address put in by the
> relay.

It was a CI Patchwork tool. Response [1] to my patch was sent from "From:
Patchwork <patchwork@emeril.freedesktop.org>".

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/172735727458.1107233.1757281470637305143@2413ebb6fbb6/

I think that tool is ignoring the "Reply-To" field [2] from the B4 message and
using the From field.

	From: Daniel Gomez via B4 Relay <devnull+da.gomez.samsung.com@kernel.org>
	Reply-To: da.gomez@samsung.com

[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240925-macos-build-support-v3-1-233dda880e60@samsung.com/raw

> 
> -K

Re: Incorrect response address when using B4

[Konstantin Ryabitsev]

On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 04:18:39PM GMT, Daniel Gomez wrote:
> > Was it an automated tool that sent you that message? Normally, email clients
> > would honour the "Reply-To" field and not use the From: address put in by the
> > relay.
> 
> It was a CI Patchwork tool. Response [1] to my patch was sent from "From:
> Patchwork <patchwork@emeril.freedesktop.org>".
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/172735727458.1107233.1757281470637305143@2413ebb6fbb6/
> 
> I think that tool is ignoring the "Reply-To" field [2] from the B4 message and
> using the From field.
> 
> 	From: Daniel Gomez via B4 Relay <devnull+da.gomez.samsung.com@kernel.org>
> 	Reply-To: da.gomez@samsung.com

It's no big deal as long as you got the email response in the end. We expect
this to happen with a lot of automation, which is why any replies to the relay
address are auto-discarded.

-K

Re: Incorrect response address when using B4

[Daniel Gomez]

On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 10:20:57AM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 04:18:39PM GMT, Daniel Gomez wrote:
> > > Was it an automated tool that sent you that message? Normally, email clients
> > > would honour the "Reply-To" field and not use the From: address put in by the
> > > relay.
> > 
> > It was a CI Patchwork tool. Response [1] to my patch was sent from "From:
> > Patchwork <patchwork@emeril.freedesktop.org>".
> > 
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/172735727458.1107233.1757281470637305143@2413ebb6fbb6/
> > 
> > I think that tool is ignoring the "Reply-To" field [2] from the B4 message and
> > using the From field.
> > 
> > 	From: Daniel Gomez via B4 Relay <devnull+da.gomez.samsung.com@kernel.org>
> > 	Reply-To: da.gomez@samsung.com
> 
> It's no big deal as long as you got the email response in the end. We expect
> this to happen with a lot of automation, which is why any replies to the relay
> address are auto-discarded.

To clarify, the email response didn't land into my inbox. I realized a response
was sent after checking at lore.kernel.org.

> 
> -K

Re: Incorrect response address when using B4

[Jani Nikula]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2024, Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@samsung.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 10:20:57AM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 04:18:39PM GMT, Daniel Gomez wrote:
>> > > Was it an automated tool that sent you that message? Normally, email clients
>> > > would honour the "Reply-To" field and not use the From: address put in by the
>> > > relay.
>> > 
>> > It was a CI Patchwork tool. Response [1] to my patch was sent from "From:
>> > Patchwork <patchwork@emeril.freedesktop.org>".
>> > 
>> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/172735727458.1107233.1757281470637305143@2413ebb6fbb6/
>> > 
>> > I think that tool is ignoring the "Reply-To" field [2] from the B4 message and
>> > using the From field.
>> > 
>> > 	From: Daniel Gomez via B4 Relay <devnull+da.gomez.samsung.com@kernel.org>
>> > 	Reply-To: da.gomez@samsung.com
>> 
>> It's no big deal as long as you got the email response in the end. We expect
>> this to happen with a lot of automation, which is why any replies to the relay
>> address are auto-discarded.
>
> To clarify, the email response didn't land into my inbox. I realized a response
> was sent after checking at lore.kernel.org.

Yeah, our patchwork instance tries not to spam everyone, and limits the
replies to the submitter + intel-gfx/intel-xe mailing lists, but
apparently uses From instead of Reply-To.


BR,
Jani.

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel

Re: Incorrect response address when using B4

[Daniel Gomez]

On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 05:45:08PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2024, Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@samsung.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 10:20:57AM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 04:18:39PM GMT, Daniel Gomez wrote:
> >> > > Was it an automated tool that sent you that message? Normally, email clients
> >> > > would honour the "Reply-To" field and not use the From: address put in by the
> >> > > relay.
> >> > 
> >> > It was a CI Patchwork tool. Response [1] to my patch was sent from "From:
> >> > Patchwork <patchwork@emeril.freedesktop.org>".
> >> > 
> >> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/172735727458.1107233.1757281470637305143@2413ebb6fbb6/
> >> > 
> >> > I think that tool is ignoring the "Reply-To" field [2] from the B4 message and
> >> > using the From field.
> >> > 
> >> > 	From: Daniel Gomez via B4 Relay <devnull+da.gomez.samsung.com@kernel.org>
> >> > 	Reply-To: da.gomez@samsung.com
> >> 
> >> It's no big deal as long as you got the email response in the end. We expect
> >> this to happen with a lot of automation, which is why any replies to the relay
> >> address are auto-discarded.
> >
> > To clarify, the email response didn't land into my inbox. I realized a response
> > was sent after checking at lore.kernel.org.
> 
> Yeah, our patchwork instance tries not to spam everyone, and limits the
> replies to the submitter + intel-gfx/intel-xe mailing lists, but
> apparently uses From instead of Reply-To.

I've just realized that it also happened with 0-day here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240917-blktrace-algn-v1-1-9fb54b7b1dfa@samsung.com/#t

The answer from 0-day went to the same wrong devnull B4 Relay address.

And lore's git-send-email + mailto: Reply instruction section is using the wrong
address as well. I'm not sure why is the Reply instructions [1] section using
From instead of Reply-To?

[1] Reply instructions:
git send-email \
	--in-reply-to=20240917-blktrace-algn-v1-1-9fb54b7b1dfa@samsung.com \
	--to=devnull+da.gomez.samsung.com@kernel.org \
	...
	/path/to/YOUR_REPLY

> 
> 
> BR,
> Jani.
> 
> -- 
> Jani Nikula, Intel

Re: Incorrect response address when using B4

[Jani Nikula]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2024, Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@samsung.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 05:45:08PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Sep 2024, Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@samsung.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 10:20:57AM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 04:18:39PM GMT, Daniel Gomez wrote:
>> >> > > Was it an automated tool that sent you that message? Normally, email clients
>> >> > > would honour the "Reply-To" field and not use the From: address put in by the
>> >> > > relay.
>> >> > 
>> >> > It was a CI Patchwork tool. Response [1] to my patch was sent from "From:
>> >> > Patchwork <patchwork@emeril.freedesktop.org>".
>> >> > 
>> >> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/172735727458.1107233.1757281470637305143@2413ebb6fbb6/
>> >> > 
>> >> > I think that tool is ignoring the "Reply-To" field [2] from the B4 message and
>> >> > using the From field.
>> >> > 
>> >> > 	From: Daniel Gomez via B4 Relay <devnull+da.gomez.samsung.com@kernel.org>
>> >> > 	Reply-To: da.gomez@samsung.com
>> >> 
>> >> It's no big deal as long as you got the email response in the end. We expect
>> >> this to happen with a lot of automation, which is why any replies to the relay
>> >> address are auto-discarded.
>> >
>> > To clarify, the email response didn't land into my inbox. I realized a response
>> > was sent after checking at lore.kernel.org.
>> 
>> Yeah, our patchwork instance tries not to spam everyone, and limits the
>> replies to the submitter + intel-gfx/intel-xe mailing lists, but
>> apparently uses From instead of Reply-To.
>
> I've just realized that it also happened with 0-day here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240917-blktrace-algn-v1-1-9fb54b7b1dfa@samsung.com/#t
>
> The answer from 0-day went to the same wrong devnull B4 Relay address.
>
> And lore's git-send-email + mailto: Reply instruction section is using the wrong
> address as well. I'm not sure why is the Reply instructions [1] section using
> From instead of Reply-To?

It's just that email is hard. It seems to be surprisingly difficult to
follow the requirements of the relevant email RFCs to the letter, but
also just by following the requirements or even recommendations of the
RFCs won't give you the kind of interoperability you might expect.

For example:

- In all cases, the "From:" field SHOULD NOT contain any mailbox that
  does not belong to the author(s) of the message. [1]

- When a message is a reply to another message, the mailboxes of the
  authors of the original message (the mailboxes in the "From:" field)
  or mailboxes specified in the "Reply-To:" field (if it exists) MAY
  appear in the "To:" field of the reply since these would normally be
  the primary recipients of the reply. [2]

I assume b4 is not using your address in From: because it's very likely
to get the email classified as spam due to From: spoofing. Worse, it
might get kernel.org on spam sender lists.

Yet using Reply-To: in replies is completely optional. It's not required
or even recommended, it's optional.

I realize this does not really help you with the issue, but might help
you adjust your expectations...


BR,
Jani.


[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.2

[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.3


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel

Re: Incorrect response address when using B4

[Konstantin Ryabitsev]

On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 11:26:12AM GMT, Jani Nikula wrote:
> - In all cases, the "From:" field SHOULD NOT contain any mailbox that
>   does not belong to the author(s) of the message. [1]

Well, the author of the message is not the original sender, but the relay
service -- so this is still true.

> I assume b4 is not using your address in From: because it's very likely
> to get the email classified as spam due to From: spoofing. Worse, it
> might get kernel.org on spam sender lists.

It's not just spam classification -- this is literally the only way to make
DMARC work. We can only send messages from domains we control, so to relay
patches coming from origins that we don't control we necessarily rewrite the
From: address (and put it into the body of the message, as git expects).

-K

Re: Incorrect response address when using B4

[Daniel Gomez]

On Mon Sep 30, 2024 at 4:20 PM CEST, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 04:18:39PM GMT, Daniel Gomez wrote:
>> > Was it an automated tool that sent you that message? Normally, email clients
>> > would honour the "Reply-To" field and not use the From: address put in by the
>> > relay.
>> 
>> It was a CI Patchwork tool. Response [1] to my patch was sent from "From:
>> Patchwork <patchwork@emeril.freedesktop.org>".
>> 
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/172735727458.1107233.1757281470637305143@2413ebb6fbb6/
>> 
>> I think that tool is ignoring the "Reply-To" field [2] from the B4 message and
>> using the From field.
>> 
>> 	From: Daniel Gomez via B4 Relay <devnull+da.gomez.samsung.com@kernel.org>
>> 	Reply-To: da.gomez@samsung.com
>
> It's no big deal as long as you got the email response in the end. We expect
> this to happen with a lot of automation, which is why any replies to the relay
> address are auto-discarded.

Konstantin,

B4 web endpoint works very well for me because of the freedom it gives me for
sending patches. However, as a user of this feature I'm expecting all replies
to go into my inbox (regardless of whether it is an automated respose or
not). Unfortunately, they don't. So, what I'm asking here is if it would be
possible for these automated responses from Intel 0-day, Intel GFX CI (Patchwork
Freedesktop) and lore (public inbox), to change their responses to use the
"Reply-To" field instead of "From". Note that the first 2, completely remove all
the Cc addresses. IIUC and according to the Jani's answer, this seems to be not
doable on their end. I'm not sure about lore's side.

Is it posible to change the "Reply instructions" section in lore, to use the
"Reply-To" field? It won't solve the problem completely but at least users of
that would use the right git-send-email command.

Also, what's the use case of using B4 web endpoint if replies may or may not
land in the sender's inbox? I think the use of this feature requires proactively
monitoring the patch and/or mailing list.

>
> -K

Re: Incorrect response address when using B4

[Jani Nikula]

On Fri, 04 Oct 2024, Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@samsung.com> wrote:
> On Mon Sep 30, 2024 at 4:20 PM CEST, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 04:18:39PM GMT, Daniel Gomez wrote:
>>> > Was it an automated tool that sent you that message? Normally, email clients
>>> > would honour the "Reply-To" field and not use the From: address put in by the
>>> > relay.
>>> 
>>> It was a CI Patchwork tool. Response [1] to my patch was sent from "From:
>>> Patchwork <patchwork@emeril.freedesktop.org>".
>>> 
>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/172735727458.1107233.1757281470637305143@2413ebb6fbb6/
>>> 
>>> I think that tool is ignoring the "Reply-To" field [2] from the B4 message and
>>> using the From field.
>>> 
>>> 	From: Daniel Gomez via B4 Relay <devnull+da.gomez.samsung.com@kernel.org>
>>> 	Reply-To: da.gomez@samsung.com
>>
>> It's no big deal as long as you got the email response in the end. We expect
>> this to happen with a lot of automation, which is why any replies to the relay
>> address are auto-discarded.
>
> Konstantin,
>
> B4 web endpoint works very well for me because of the freedom it gives me for
> sending patches. However, as a user of this feature I'm expecting all replies
> to go into my inbox (regardless of whether it is an automated respose or
> not). Unfortunately, they don't. So, what I'm asking here is if it would be
> possible for these automated responses from Intel 0-day, Intel GFX CI (Patchwork
> Freedesktop) and lore (public inbox), to change their responses to use the
> "Reply-To" field instead of "From". Note that the first 2, completely remove all
> the Cc addresses. IIUC and according to the Jani's answer, this seems to be not
> doable on their end. I'm not sure about lore's side.

I think the request is reasonable, and I sure didn't mean to give the
impression that it's not doable.

But it's still three distinct projects with their own developers that
need to be convinced to make the change. (And if it's not clear I'm not
one of those developers.)

> Is it posible to change the "Reply instructions" section in lore, to use the
> "Reply-To" field? It won't solve the problem completely but at least users of
> that would use the right git-send-email command.
>
> Also, what's the use case of using B4 web endpoint if replies may or may not
> land in the sender's inbox? I think the use of this feature requires proactively
> monitoring the patch and/or mailing list.

In most cases you'd expect people to "reply all", and if you have your
address in Cc:, you're covered. Lore's instructions do that. It's the
cases that limit recipients to reduce what might be consider spam that
have the issue.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel

Re: Incorrect response address when using B4

[Jani Nikula]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2024, Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@samsung.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I sent this patch [1] using B4 web endpoint and then I received a
> response email to the wrong address: To: "Daniel Gomez via B4 Relay"
> <devnull+da.gomez.samsung.com@kernel.org> instead of To: "Daniel Gomez"
> <da.gomez@samsung.com>.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240925-macos-build-support-v3-1-233dda880e60@samsung.com/

I guess you're saying the replies should be using the Reply-To: header.

Oddly enough, even my MUA doesn't respect the Reply-To: header when the
same address is already in To:/Cc:, as a way to handle mailing list
Reply-To "munging" [1].

BR,
Jani.


[1] http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-harmful.html



>
> Is this something that can be fixed on the CI, patchwork side?
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel

Re: Incorrect response address when using B4

[Daniel Gomez]

On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 05:09:54PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2024, Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@samsung.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I sent this patch [1] using B4 web endpoint and then I received a
> > response email to the wrong address: To: "Daniel Gomez via B4 Relay"
> > <devnull+da.gomez.samsung.com@kernel.org> instead of To: "Daniel Gomez"
> > <da.gomez@samsung.com>.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240925-macos-build-support-v3-1-233dda880e60@samsung.com/
> 
> I guess you're saying the replies should be using the Reply-To: header.

Exactly. Do you know if this can be fixed on the ci/patchwork bot?

> 
> Oddly enough, even my MUA doesn't respect the Reply-To: header when the
> same address is already in To:/Cc:, as a way to handle mailing list
> Reply-To "munging" [1].

My address was in Cc. B4 adds you in the To/Cc automatically unless you specify
no with '--not-me-too'.

Do you know if removing yourself from To/Cc makes ci/patchwork use the Reply-To
header?

> 
> BR,
> Jani.
> 
> 
> [1] https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=ce24ae2c-aec63371-ce252563-000babd9f1ba-20c0723eefd97920&q=1&e=ad8d684b-6634-4f39-87c0-216f0a44334f&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmarc.merlins.org%2Fnetrants%2Freply-to-harmful.html
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > Is this something that can be fixed on the CI, patchwork side?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Daniel
> 
> -- 
> Jani Nikula, Intel